NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

首页

Bursting the Brain-Computer Interface Bubble: The So-Called Mind Control Has Not Surpassed Stephen Hawking’s Wheelchair in Technological Capabilities

发布时间：

2026-06-16

Bursting the Brain-Computer Interface Bubble: The So-Called Mind Control Has Not Surpassed Stephen Hawking’s Wheelchair in Technological Capabilities

Sun Zuodong

The brain-computer interface (BCI) industry is currently riding a wave of soaring popularity. Media outlets keep hyping up related concepts, massive amounts of social capital are pouring into the sector, and invasive BCI projects have been designated as key industrial initiatives in some regions. The various mind-controlled peripheral devices available on the market essentially work by collecting and analyzing electroencephalography (EEG) signals from the scalp, then matching the signals with preset commands to operate external equipment. Decades ago, Stephen Hawking already realized mind-controlled typing via his wheelchair device. Today’s invasive solutions have only achieved a marginal improvement in signal accuracy, still failing to interpret random human thoughts. No revolutionary technological leaps have been made at all.

Fueled by conceptual hype, the industry has undergone heavy commercial packaging, and numerous projects have secured large-scale investment despite immature technologies. Capital chases this fad blindly. Once the speculative bubble bursts, most of these projects will inevitably end in failure.

Some research teams deliberately withhold full experimental data and overstate research conclusions in a bid to obtain government research funds quickly, leading to widespread padded academic papers across the field. Young researchers ought to view existing literature rationally, screen out exaggerated research claims, and consciously resist academic misconduct.

Electrode implantation inside the brain has long been plagued by corrosion and glial encapsulation issues. After two to three years of use, signal quality deteriorates rapidly, requiring secondary surgery to replace the electrodes. Adopting mature anti-corrosion technologies used in shipbuilding cannot be regarded as an original major breakthrough in neuroscience research. Deep brain electromagnetic modulation, namely external brain pacemakers, can deliver neuromodulation effectively without implanting foreign objects into the brain.

Continuing to iterate technologies based on intracranial implantation means forcing the public to act as test subjects and eroding public trust in scientific research. Many research directions simply follow overseas development paths, leaving the domestic sector with a weak foundation of original technologies — a situation that calls for deep reflection across the industry.

A large share of public scientific research resources has been channeled into the invasive BCI track. Enterprises deliberately downplay inherent medical risks such as intracranial infection, postoperative hemorrhage and electrode failure, while some administrative projects rush to launch similar programs mindlessly. Capital markets need to evaluate business models rationally and not be misled by marketing stunts. Excessive concept hype will only mislead investors, waste national research funding and confuse the general public.

Consumer-grade EEG headbands are merely for experiential display purposes. They have no therapeutic effects on diseases and must not be confused with non-invasive medical neuromodulation devices.

News media should stick to objective reporting, discard sci-fi-style exaggerated publicity and correct public misconceptions. While keeping pace with emerging trends, local regulatory authorities need to allocate research funds reasonably and avoid inefficient and repetitive investment. The general public should view emerging technologies sensibly: do not blindly purchase entertainment-oriented products, and never readily accept invasive surgical treatment related to BCIs.

If medical institutions exaggerate treatment efficacy or conduct unauthorized clinical trials that cause physical harm to patients, affected individuals may preserve relevant medical evidence and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests through regulatory complaints and judicial channels.

As a researcher with over 30 years of experience in the research and development of non-invasive therapies for brain diseases, I pioneered the external deep brain electromagnetic technology. This article presents objective comments purely from the perspective of an industry researcher, aiming to sound the alarm in advance. I fully support fundamental neuroscience exploration and recognize the efforts of research teams dedicated to down-to-earth research.

Nevertheless, I oppose the prevailing one-sided trend featuring capital speculation, inflated academic papers and reckless approval of projects by local authorities. External approaches can achieve targeted electromagnetic intervention on the brain, making traumatic solutions completely unnecessary. We must never trade people’s health for research achievements. It is hoped that regulatory authorities will draw a clear line between consumer electronic products and medical devices, and distribute research funds in a balanced manner. The ultimate goal of all scientific and technological innovation is to benefit the people, and industrial prosperity should never come at the cost of public health.

About the Author

Sun Zuodong, Researcher, Founder of Aobo Medical, Dean of Ya'ou Brain Science Institute of Heilongjiang province, Recipient of Special Government Allowance from the State Council. He has devoted over 30 years to the R&D of non-invasive rehabilitation equipment for encephalopathy and is the original developer of external brain pacemaker technology.